Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question already has an answer here:

So a couple years ago when I was learning basic back-end web development, I found a tutorial for creating a basic log in system. I haven't done much modification to the code since, but I have the opportunity now to use a more robust system if I need to.

So here's the code I'm currently using:

$pepper    =    "String of 24 random characters";
$salt       =   dechex(mt_rand(0, 2147483647)) . dechex(mt_rand(0, 2147483647));
$loopcount  =   97674;

for($i = 0; $i < $loopcount; $i++){
    $value  =   hash("sha256", $value . $salt . $pepper);

return $value;

Basically, a static 24-character pepper, a salt, and the password are hashed 90,000+ times. It's probably also worth mentioning that the salt is stored in the database.

My biggest question is if hashing it that many times actually does anything. I also want to know if the salt and pepper are strong enough.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Lucas Kauffman, TildalWave, Xander, AJ Henderson, Iszi Jul 2 '14 at 14:25

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

actually, hashing it MANY times is bad. here is a quote from to proof that.

"To cut a long story short, hashing a hash N times doesn't make your passwords more secure and can actually make it less secure as a hacker can quite easily reverse the process by generating hash collisions."

read the full explanation at

share|improve this answer
+1 for using standard means and not rolling your own crypto. – Dmitry Yanushkevich Jul 2 '14 at 11:39
Agreed, this is the better answer and includes a very good link – AlexH Jul 2 '14 at 12:17
While I agree very much with the conclusion, saying that you shouldn't repeatedly hash is silly. Yes, it reduces the total amount of entropy, but any hashing scheme that becomes breakable after a few percentage points of lost entropy wasn't secure anyway. Bcrypt, the suggested tool, iterates hashing internally anyway! – Phoshi Jul 2 '14 at 12:22
@Phoshi The point was repeatedly using weak hashing is not a way to improve it. – Cthulhu Jul 2 '14 at 13:09
97674 iterations is negligible, and besides, iterations don’t affect collision probability in the way the author of this article seems to think they do. MD5 and SHA-1 are also perfectly fine for hashing algorithms (HMAC-SHA1 is a common choice for PBKDF2). The article also implies that a shared salt is in some way okay, so I’d take it with a grain of… well, that. – Ryan O'Hara Jul 2 '14 at 19:38

I would recommend against using sha256 for hashing passwords. The sha2 suite is designed to be fast - exactly the thing you dont want. In short, use bcrypt:

In a proper KDF, iterations are similarly included to slow down the process of password hashing (to answer your question whether or not hashing 90000 times does anything), all of this defends primarily against online brute forcing.

More here:

share|improve this answer
So password_hash($password, dechex(mt_rand(0, 2147483647)) . dechex(mt_rand(0, 2147483647))); is sufficient? – Meredith Jul 2 '14 at 11:46
I mean password_hash($password, PASSWORD_DEFAULT); – Meredith Jul 2 '14 at 11:54

The security gain from hashing 90,000+ times is basically minimal.In fact it's actually less secure since any prospective hacker can crack it easier by looking for collisions. You may as well use a higher hashrate (i.e sha512) and therefore have a longer hash rather than just looping through and appending previous results. All your loop does really is increase server load so you'd probably want to improve this code however you can. The salt and pepper are fine though.

Also if you do use a different hash method then make sure to increase the length of the field you're putting it in.

share|improve this answer
So if I switch to sha512 (or bcrypt like AlexH suggested), should I still hash it multiple times? If so, how many times? – Meredith Jul 2 '14 at 11:34
Whichever hashing method you're using, hashing multiple times is pretty useless, at least in my experience. – Apple_Master Jul 2 '14 at 11:36
bcrypt includes iterations within itself, you wont need to call it multiple times, just define the number of iterations – AlexH Jul 2 '14 at 12:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.